It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.

Give Steve his own country.

He could establish his dictatorship there.

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

If the concern was that the large states had too much power by winner-takes-all and the small states that have disproportionate electoral weight, then you are really arguing for a more balanced population between states. Presumably that would be to help mid-size states. If that was the goal, the Constitution would have provided for representation penalties for states that were too small to encourage merger, and for those states too large to encourage splits.

Logged

I'm on my road trip to the Pac NW. Red is an overnight stay; blue is a point of interest; cyan is a stop; green is just a drive through.

Generally, since the 23rd Amendment, such a condition would require the Democrat to win around 51.5% of the two-way vote in order to win a majority of the states [ranging from a low of 50.2% in 1976 to a high of 52.1% in 2000, ignoring 1968]. A nice bias to the Republicans, though not massive. (Though, if it were in place, it would all but guarantee a McCain victory this year).

"Tipping Point" states for a 26-state majority:

2004:Florida. Kerry would have needed 51.3% of the two-way vote to win here (he won 48.6%).

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

I don't understand this argument. How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then. The union is made up of states, not people. It is the states the choose the president.

You're going around in circles here. Of course the electoral college is what the constitution dictates. The popular vote is irrelevant, constitutionally speaking.

This is a 2-way street. If you'd like to change the constitution to give each state equal power in the electoral college, then surely I can make an argument to completely eliminate the Electoral College entirely.

Not that I'm sure I want to do that, but at the very least, I support fair allocation of the electors based on the population of the states.

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite. The nation is a collection of states. The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives. But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union. When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit. Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California. One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.